Request for clarification

Skip to first unread message

Hugh Paterson III

Jun 1, 2021, 11:29:41 AM6/1/21

Fantastic meeting today. 

I'm hoping to get some clarity around how we are navigating the LRMI concepts which we discussed. It seems to me that the conversation is safely housed within the context of concepts.

For example, how we defined a learning resource as a "persistent ressource". Conceptually I understand what is trying to be agreed upon and am in agreement. (no people, no events). So, I wonder why define this in context of rather than more context neutrally. By that I mean, IF a repository has not adopted and wants to adopt LRMI could they easily do so? The way the conversation is progressing it seems that the assumptions is that implementers have already bought into, rather than Dublin Core, Open Language Archives Community, FRBR (which is now Resource Description and Access), etc.

For example if we define a learning resource and use the phrase "has one or more physical or digital representation" are we explicitly saying that the schema can only apply to the "Work" level" of FRBR's Work:Expression:Manifestation:Item typology (also used in RD&A)? 
Working from a context of OAI-PMH where things are expressed in XML, I forsee using LRMI within the allowed xsi:type extensions. 
The following is how this would be described for a DCMIType vocabulary item.
<dc:type xsi:type="dcterms:DCMIType">Text</dc:type> 

By annaology using LRMI as an xsi:type extension within OAI-PMH I would shape this something like the following:

<dc:type xsi:type="lrmi:LearningResourceType">Assessment</dc:type>

I am concerned that our vocabulary choice should not be so tight as to limit readings from those who might apply LRMI from the FRBR/RD&A perspective. That is, LRMI should stand on its own both in relation to other parts of and other description frameworks like Dublin Core. From my understanding, LRMI is designed to be a broad scope discovery tool which individual implementers may have to conduct "mappings" from their metadata fields to LRMI fields. 

- Hugh 

Stuart Sutton

Jun 1, 2021, 11:45:11 AM6/1/21
Hugh, LRMI is coupled to in the sense that it provided the basis for's learning resource properties. LRMI could have settled on the properties it defined existing in the schema namespace. But we did not do such a "settling". LRMI has been defined independently in it's own DCMI/LRMI namespace schema and follows its own development path. It can therefore be used in contexts that are quite independent of, in a learning resource application profile using only DCMI and LRMI terms--or any other namespace combo that is useful.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Learning Resource Metadata Initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
To view this discussion on the web visit

Phil Barker

Jun 1, 2021, 12:12:08 PM6/1/21

To add to Stuart's response: the relationship between LRMI and is also encoded in the definitions in the DCMI namespace. For example includes the triples:

lrmi:LearningResource rdfs:subClassOf schema:CreativeWork ;
              owl:equivalentClass schema:LearningResource .

That doesn't mean you cannot use it with Dublin Core Terms, or FOAF, RDA or whatever your preference.


To view this discussion on the web visit

Phil Barker.
CETIS LLP: a cooperative consultancy for innovation in education technology.
PJJK Limited: technology to enhance learning; information systems for education.

CETIS is a co-operative limited liability partnership, registered in England number OC399090
PJJK Limited is registered in Scotland as a private limited company, number SC569282.

Reply all
Reply to author
0 new messages